Advaita Vedanta: Qualified Non-Dualism

Discussion in 'Hinduism' started by Qu'otar, Sep 11, 2012.

  1. Qu'otar

    Qu'otar charlie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, please...

    Why? What troubles? Why not have the best of both worlds, especially when integrating the religions?

    I think:
    • God within the Father is impersonal: Allaah. The One God.
    • The Father is personal, and we can "see" him as such, when we see the Son.
    • The Holy Spirit is God in the world, and can move us to self-knowing
    • The Son is the first step up the ladder and can protect us and guide us.

    I could go with this, but it does not specify impersonal/personal.
     
  2. Qu'otar

    Qu'otar charlie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nick, you response has many resizings and such. I cannot deal with all that so I am unable to respond to individual points.

    It seems you are using linguistics to define the term Parabrahman, rather that Shankara. Here is the wiki:

    So, the Supreme God is Brahman.

    The Supreme God as a Person is Parabrahman.
     
  3. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,268
    Likes Received:
    110

    How could you NOT already beware of the "Virat-rupa", the "Vishva-rupa"?

    Here is a picture of what I described, not a chart, so the contents are shown bu not labeled:

    BTW, the lighted area in the center with a little cow-herd boy is little Krishna in his original-original form, on his abode known as Goloka Vrindavan.
    That Goloka Vrindavan is situated outside the material cosmos in a sky that is known as 'self-luminuous' & known as the "spiritual sky".

    It is called the 'spiritual sky' because it is illuminated by the effulgence [aka, brahmajyoti] that originates from Krishna smile & body. Everything in the 'spiritual sky' is composed of energy [shakti] that is known as "Sat-chit-ananda". All things in the 'spiritual sky' are engaged in inter-personal pastimes with Godhead [ala, nuetrality, servantship, fraternal, parental & marital loving relationships, aka, different 'rasas']

    [​IMG]

    A POV from outside the material expansions of creation look thus:

    The "spiritual sky" with the "spiritual planets" where Godhead is known as Narayana [where the denisens serve in the mood (rasa) of Citisen in-relations to the King] are shown.

    There is a representation of Goloka Vrindavan, where Krishna lives in his original rasa, as a cowherd boy form ---this is where the other 4 rasas are to be experineced with Godhead's audience.

    and then we see [it is written that the material energy fills 1/4 of the spiritual sky] Maha-Vishnu's plenary expansion as Karanadakashayi-Vishnu.

    From bubbles eminating from Maha-Vishnu's body come countless "Brahmandas" [egg shaped orbs].

    Within the "Brahmandas" the further expansions occur such as, Ksirodakashayi-Vishnu [param-atma's collective reservoir] and then fianlly, Garbhodakashayi-Vishnu, from the navel of whom Brahma is born. The Vedas are imparted to Brahma after his searching meditation ends. Brahma proceeds to populate and engineer the mundane material creation as we know it. It is written that when Brahma dies the brahmanda will come to an end. My question is: Does Brahma's death coincide with Maha-Vishnu breathing back-in when thus the Brahmandas are withdrawn back into Mahavishnu's being.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Qu'otar

    Qu'otar charlie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do not know the answer to your question, but I do question Goloka.

     
  5. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,268
    Likes Received:
    110

    Well, somehow you are mis-guided and 101% wrong.
    How did you manage to do that?

    It's similar to saying:

    Also try substituting my bold type words with:
    Capitalism,
    Free-enterprise,
    democracy,
    Women's Human Rights,
    Child Labor Laws,
    Union Labor Contracts,
    Pro-life Laws,
    Anti-Racketeering laws,
    Free-press Laws
    Freeedom of speech Laws.

    But the important thing to remember when quoting Media sources is that most of the Journalists pay higher rent and higher taxes ---so they must report "Man bites Dog" stories 24/7 and then also charge a fee to read the scribes propaganda between adverts for dog food and diners where ex-cons get steady work.

    TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
    Goloka Vrindavan is revealed by Vyasa as the Conclusion of Vedic study and the reason for Vedic study every where throughout the Vedas, Upanisads and the 18 Maha-Puranas.

    Oops, maybe you have to re-read the Texts again and then quote Vyasadeva inorder to know the prupose behind Vyasadeva's labor.

    in Vyasadeva's service,
    Bhaktajan
     
  6. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,268
    Likes Received:
    110
  7. Sam Albion

    Sam Albion akaFrancisKing:ViveLeRoi!

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    350
    Likes Received:
    9
    ...I agree with Thomas' that christianity DOES have a "parabrahma", and not just a "brahma".

    ... I am also in agreement with Nick -- parabrahman is, supposedly, the impersonal brahman; the "beyond" (para) brahman; the "real deal", as opposed to the (in comparison), smaller deity...

    ...I disagree with Nick's comment that "... accented and unaccented forms of brahman refer to different portions of the same Brahma", though. It's just the para bit that differentiates.

    Parabrahma is NOT a person. Parabrahma is not the daddy of brahma.

    Parabrahma is "beyond". Like... the buddhist division of the two truths, yeah?

    you have truth one- samvritti-satyam : (that which has some qualities of truth), here, brahma, and you have:
    paramarthamsatyam: that which is beyond asking (about notions such as) truth", here, parabrahma.

    In my opinion, Brahma is not the top dog. The God who gets the most face-time in the vedas and upanishads is Indra (thunder, rain, drinking soma). He, along with Surya (sun God), and Agni, (the sacred flame), were the Gods most pre-Vedic peoples sought to propitiate.

    And for obvious, pastoral reasons...

    Globally, when man moved from tiny villages and into large cities, the number of Gods diminishes. In the "west", the boulder of Christianity crushed the many diverse religious practises and beliefs that existed before Rome, and in India, the nature Gods, the natural forces and the many "household" devas; small Gods of hearth and home, were replaced by the caste system of Gods: Brahma at the top, (becoming the God of priests and intellectuals), Visnu (the God of commerce) and Siva (the god of magic/sex/drugs): today's trimurti.

    The story of Brahma is that, he breathed himself into being. From the parabrahma. He... begot himself, just like in Christianity there was "the word", here, there was breath...

    The... evolution of the world, was different. Traditionally, "space" is an ocean of milk, and various creatures (the first beings), churned this ocean, and eventually, we arrived here, tapping at the lil black plastic keys. Like all creation myths, this tale and those like them were a primitive man's attempt to make sense of something he didn't understand.

    How we got here isn't really that important -- it's what we do while we're here that matters...

    I also have to side with Qu'otar;

    "In the Vedas, Upanisads and the 18 Maha-Puranas there is no mention of Goloka Vrindavan".

    Krsna, 100 years ago, was worshipped by only a very small number of people as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in today's Vrndavana, and that is also where his only historical textual reference comes from. Most people, pre-ISKCON, who knew Krsna, saw Krnsa as a minor deity, and an emanation of Visnu. His brother, Balarama, was an emanation of Siva. It is thanks to Srila Prabhupada and his $40 dollars we have to thank for what we today know as Krsna Consciousness...

    However, if we consider Brahma's original humble origins, we cannot deride Krsna for jockeying himself into position as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, can we?

    bheda-bheda?
     
  8. Qu'otar

    Qu'otar charlie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am confused with your switching between brahma and brahman (parabrahma and parabrahman). I am talking about brahman. The Hindu monotheistic God as espoused by Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda. Unless there are other monotheistic Hindu traditions. If you are polytheistic, it is up to you to change to a monotheistic worldview to get in line with the Qu'ran.

    It is clear to me that Parabrahman does not mean "beyond" Brahman, it means Brahman with attributes, with Personality. It is the personal form of Brahman. Brahman is impersonal, without attributes, and is the same as Allaah.
     
  9. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,268
    Likes Received:
    110

    iti çuçruma dhéräëäà
    ye nas tad vicacakñire (end of mantra ten of Isha Upanishad)
    {not to be confused with school yard talk},
    Bhaktajan
     
  10. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,611
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    No.

    Please stick to Theosophy, you're just spreading misinformation when you offer comments about Christianity.

    God bless,

    Thomas
     
  11. Bhaktajan II

    Bhaktajan II Hare Krishna Yogi

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,268
    Likes Received:
    110
    To put it right:

    1] Brahman = The space
    2] Param-atama = God Localised as supersoul along side each individual soul
    3] Bhagavan = The original persoange of Godhead, full in all oppulences.

    The above three are the three progressive realisations attained in classical Hindu tradition.
    Also, "beyond these 3-aspects of God's Omnipresence ---there are no other things to be accounted for. These three catagories of Godhead's expansion of creation are encompassed all things of existance".

    FYI:
    1] Brahma = 1st Born being in this material cosmos --Duties: creator/progenitor

    2] Vishnu = Plenary Expansion of Godhead that allows the material cosmos to rest and transpire --Duties: Maintain Creation [not a born being].

    3] Shiva = 5th son Born of Brahma --Duties: desolution of the cosmos/progenitor

    The spirit soul is living either in the Material cosmos ---or--- the soul is living outside the Material cosmos.

    God lives outside the Material cosmos.

    As of this writting we are NOW living dee inside the Material cosmos.
     
  12. Thomas

    Thomas Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,611
    Likes Received:
    2,050
    I don't think you can integrate religions at any meaningful depth. And why would you? each religion, if it is what it purports to be, is complete and entire in itself ... it doesn't need integration, a process which can only over-complicate, confound and confuse. It's been tried, and it always ends in a Tower of Babel scenario.

    You can draw outward correspondences, but that's because religion addresses man, and man is man everywhere ...

    The theist/panthesit/panentheist debate is over the definition of God. Christianity's definition is founded on the Hebrew Scriptures and the data of Revelation in Christ, considered in the light of the Greek philosophic tradition. It's quite rigorously precise.

    I would say that anything created is, by that very fact, not God and, as creation is created, it is not God.

    Also, God being Absolute, Infinite and All-Perfect, nothing can be added to, nothing can be taken away, nothing can be changed, nothing altered, God does not increase nor decrease ... therefore creation, which is subject to contingency, growth and decay, coming and going, etc, is not divine according to that definition, and does not impact on God in the slightest.

    God can be all in all, through and through, and is Immanently present to all creation all the time, but He is not the same stuff as creation is, nor is creation the same stuff God is ... so I think 'panentheism' is a bit of a fudge that relies on indistinct definitions as far as Christianity is concerned. In polytheist religions, it may well be different.

    But He makes His will known to man, and man can communicate with Him (if not, surely 'Allah' is a delusion ... which it is not?)
    Well hang on ... now you're drawing distinctions within the Godhead, I think, and Christianity does not hold to that. God is One, God is not a composite, and God is simple.
    'Personal' and 'impersonal' are human determinations.

    True.

    We would shake our heads on that one, as it suggests a mode of God, and moreover is a cosmological determination. The Holy Spirit is God, before the world ever was — God is not Trinity from the human perspective, but rather from an act of self-disclosure.

    The Holy Spirit leads us to the Son.

    I think this debate is often conducted under a misunderstanding of terms.

    The first question is whether there can be any communication between God and man at all. Deists, for example, would say no. God created the cosmos, walked away, and has nothing more to do with it.

    The Abrahamic tradition has God deeply involved with His creation. The question then is, how can God communicate His will and intent to man?

    First, by signs. The Laws of Nature are His, after all.

    But it is axiomatic that He wants to be known, and what greater dignity can a Deity confer on a created nature than to communicate to that nature as that nature. So God comes to man in a way that man knows, and knows better than any other ... as a person, like himself.

    If God is impersonal, then God is either deficient, lacking the qualities that define a person, as Boethius said, for example: "An individual substance of a rational nature"

    Or God is simply, and utterly, transcendent, beyond person, indeed beyond being.

    It seems to me that the names or classifications of the Divine as expressed in the Vedic Tradition, Brahma, Ishvara ... are human classifications imposed from without.

    For this reason they do not apply in Christianity, as we do not classify God in that way. To apply them to Christianity is to misunderstand Christianity.

    The Doctrine of the Trinity is Meta-Cosmic. It is not three classifications of God, but rather describes a process within God, the Life of the Unmoved Mover. The Three Persons of the Trinity are accorded the designation 'person' only analogously, for God transcends 'person' and 'being'.

    There is a Greek philosophical classification, for example: Arche Anarchos (The Principle without Principle) is the Father, Arche (Principle (cf John 1:1)) is the Son ... but that's about as far as we like to complicate it.

    The meta-personal discussion of God takes two streams. God as manifest as an Immanent Presence we class as cataphatic theology, which makes positive statements — God is Good, God is Love, and the like. This is the most commonly-met aspect of the Christian Tradition.

    God as Transcendent can only be spoken of in apophatic (negative) terms, such as 'Ineffible' or 'Divine Darkness' and 'Beyond Being' — this theology is more discreet, but it is there, and unless you've had it really well explained, you're inclined to get it wrong.

    There's much tosh spoken about what Meister Eckhart is supposed to have meant, for example. Another piece of nonsense, for example, says that the Christian mystics outgrew the Tradition ...

    God bless

    Thomas
     
  13. Qu'otar

    Qu'otar charlie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am truly sorry this thread died. My fault for poor response, no doubt. My apologies. I will try to resurrect for those willing to continue.

    I must say I have gotten the book recommended to me titled "Christianity and the Doctrine of Non-Dualism". I am into the first chapter, in anticipation.

    Thanks!
     
  14. Qu'otar

    Qu'otar charlie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    We have 6 (8) terms we are dealing with, which makes it complex. I'd like to dive into them:
    1. Personal God: an Anthropomorphic God as a representation in the world as an active principle and whom we can direct our prayers too. In the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, he acknowledges that some people need a personal God to devote to and some need an impersonal God to conceptualize. The personal God seems useful to Bhaktic devotees and the impersonal God is useful to jnanic knowledge seekers. Both can be used at once by the same person.
    2. Impersonal God: see above. It is understood that God as inactive is closer to the right conceptualization. This is the impersonal God.
    3. Godhead: the Trinity treated as unity. Is it personal or impersonal? Or both?
    4. Parabrahman: is it better to understand "Param" as "Supreme" or "with attributes and personality"? There does seem to be multiple understandings in different traditions within Hinduism. From my reading of Vedanta, the term never really came up. A more used term is Ishvara and Atman, from my readings. I have never read Sankara directly. My understanding was as the personal God.
    5. Brahman: my understanding was the impersonal God: Infinite, Absolute, Inactive, No form, ...
    6. Brahmān: Always figured this was the correct spelling of Brahman and that they were the same.
    7. Ishvara: the Lord, equivalent in my book to Parabrahman. The active, personal God.
    8. Atman: the egoless self--identity that approached Ishvara.

    The wiki talks of different understandings of Parabrahman between Vedanta, Vishnu and Shakti traditions. I cannot claim to be familiar with all of them. I have steered clear of non-Vedantic traditions due to wanting to maintain monotheistic orientation.
     
  15. Qu'otar

    Qu'otar charlie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    My exposure is through Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda, who were rooted from Sankara works. Although I have read a little of Vyasa, is seems quite polytheistic to me.

    Of course, the Bhagavad Gita refers to these other Gods, sub-Gods to Brahman (angels by any other term)...
     
  16. Qu'otar

    Qu'otar charlie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    *shrug* :)

    I really like the ideas of satchitananda and this other idea I have heard of but not known the name of as "rasas". The observation that one's understanding of God, through one's relationship with him and/or her, can provide the relationships of love one may bee missing in the real world creating a complete person of the heart, is a fine idea. It frees and heals the heart .

    I like to think that all the bubbles of Brahmandas are the hook each person has in their heart to find a connection to Christ/Krishna. And so the Many can become the One in collective consciousness.
     
  17. Nick the Pilot

    Nick the Pilot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    68
    Q,

    You may be interested in equivalent terms for Brahman, Parabrahman, etc., between the major religions.

    http://users.ez2.net/nick29/theosophy/tabulation.htm

    But if you think that Parabrahman does not mean beyond Brahman, this chart may not be of interest to you.

    Please note that the term Atman does not appear in this chart and refers to something else.
     
  18. Qu'otar

    Qu'otar charlie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the link. Due to the variety of Hindu philosophies (I believe there are 6 schools of thought) your record titled Hinduism does not match Vedanta, to my knowledge.

    Interestingly, the wiki page on Vedanta got updated on the 17th of Sept, and one section that was greatly expanded was the Philosophy section...great news since that is its core.

    Within Advaita Vedanta Philosophy section, there are links to Ontology: the Nature of Being, which discusses what we are talking about, and Anthropology: the Nature of Man. There is no mention of Parabrahman. I wonder how you would map this to your table.
     
  19. Qu'otar

    Qu'otar charlie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could you talk a little about the Secret Doctrine's terminology? My first exposure to these ideas (although I have read a bit of Annie Besant; especially liked Esoteric Christianity):
    1. Absolute
    2. 1st Logos
    3. 2nd Logos
    4. 3rd Logos
    5. 7 Dhyani-Chohans

    Thanks!
     
  20. Qu'otar

    Qu'otar charlie

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let me retract the last bit. I have no idea, but the idea of Brahma and the 7 Rishis are not central to the ontology of Vedanta, I believe...of course, my readings have focused on the One God, Brahman, and not so much the manifestation of the One into the Many, although that is an area of great interest to me, across the board.
     

Share This Page